Rutland Free Library

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 22, 1990

299 N.L.R.B. 524 (N.L.R.B. 1990)

524 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Rutland Free Library and Local 1201, American
Federation of State, County & Municipal Em-
ployees and Vermont Labor Relations Board,
Petitioner. Case A0-274
August 22, 1990
ADVISORY OPINION
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
CRACRAFT, DEVANEY, AND OVIATT
Pursuant to Section 102 98(b) of the National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, on
January 16, 1990, the Vermont Labor Relations
Board (the State Board) filed a petition for an advi-
sory opinion as to whether the Board would assert
jurisdiction over the Rutland Free Library (the
Employer) In pertinent part the petition alleges
(1) that the Employer is a "pnvate, non-profit li-
brary", (2) that the Employer and Local 1201,
AFSCME (the Union) are parties to a representa-
tion proceeding, Docket No 89-57, which is cur-
rently pendmg before the State Board, and (3) that
although the State Board has not yet made any
findings in that proceeding, the Employer had
made representations dunng the investigation that
its gross annual revenues are "less than $1 million"
and that it annually purchases over $50,000 worth
of goods from out of state sources
Although advised of their right to file statements
of position on the State Board's petition, neither
the Employer nor the Union have done so
Having duly considered the matter,' we are of
the opinion that we would not assert junsdiction
over the Employer We find that libraries are most
closely analogous to art galleries and other "cultur-
al enterprises" which serve as "an adjunct to the
educational system," and that the $1 million discre-
tionary standard the Board has established for such
institutions should therefore apply 2 Here, as the
petition indicates that the Employer's gross annual
revenue is "less than $1 million," it is clear that the
Employer fails to meet that standard
Accordingly, the parties are advised that, based
on the allegations in the petition, the Board would
not assert jurisdiction over the Employer
MEMBER OVIATT, dissenting
Contrary to my colleagues, I would not establish
or adopt jurisdictional standards in an unlitigated
advisory opinion proceeding Although I recognize
that all parties are provided an opportunity to com-
ment in an advisory opinion proceeding, they very
often, as in this case, do not do so Accordingly, I
would dismiss the petition for advisory opinion and
await a litigated case to adopt a standard for librar-
ies
'The petition does not allege, nor are we aware, of any unfair labor
practice or representation cases involving this dispute currently pending
before the Board or its Regional Offices
2 See Wave Hifi Inc. 248 NLRB 1149 (1980), and cases cited therein
Based on data obtained by the Board, It appears that the adoption of this
standard will bring approximately 15 percent of the private nonprofit li-
brary establishments and 43 percent of the employees within the cover-
age of the Act—percentages roughly equal to the overall percentages of
other types of pnvate nonprofit establishments and employees that are
covered under the "cultural/educational-adjunct" standard
299 NLRB No 90